The CoRL 2026 review form, explained

How CoRL reviewers read your paper

CoRL reviewers write section-by-section reviews with heavy weight on real-robot evidence (simulation-only work is acceptable when the simulator is realistic and the link to real robots is clear) and check that the mandatory Limitations section is honest; a frank limitations section is not a weakness. Papers without any weak-accept-or-better score may be rejected before rebuttal; the one-page rebuttal targets factual errors.

• Weigh real-robot evidence heavily, but do not reject realistic simulation work just for lacking hardware.
• Do not count an honest limitations section as a weakness.
• Ask only questions a one-page factual rebuttal can answer.

Where the bar sits. CoRL 2026 accepted roughly a third of ~2,100 submissions (secondary source; 2024: ~39%). Papers need at least one weak accept to survive the first round. On this modeled 1–4 scale a mean of ≥ 2.75 is a rough proxy for acceptance.

The reviewer form, field by field

In the order reviewers see it, with every score and its official wording.

1. 01

   Summary

   Free text

   The problem, approach and robot-learning contribution, in your own words.

2. 02

   Strengths

   List of points

   Specific strengths, section by section. Real-robot evidence weighs heavily; simulation-only work is fine when the simulator is realistic and the path to real robots is clear.

3. 03

   Weaknesses

   List of points

   Specific weaknesses: sim-to-real gap, number and diversity of real trials, baselines, failure analysis, generality of the claims. Each actionable.

4. 04

   Limitations

   Free text

   Is the required Limitations section honest and complete? A frank limitations section is not a weakness.

5. 05

   Questions

   List of points

   Questions the one-page rebuttal could answer (factual clarifications; no new experiments).

6. 06

   Rating

   Score · 1–4

   Papers without at least one weak accept or above (from a reviewer or the AC) may be rejected in the first round without rebuttal.

   1. 4Strong accept
   2. 3Weak accept
   3. 2Weak reject
   4. 1Strong reject
7. 07

   Confidence

   Score · 1–5

   How certain you are about your evaluation.

   Score	Meaning
   5	The reviewer is absolutely certain that the evaluation is correct and very familiar with the relevant literature
   4	The reviewer is confident but not absolutely certain that the evaluation is correct
   3	The reviewer is fairly confident that the evaluation is correct
   2	The reviewer is willing to defend the evaluation, but it is quite likely that the reviewer did not understand central parts of the paper
   1	The reviewer's evaluation is an educated guess

Area chair meta-review

CoRL ACs can add reviewers after the rebuttal and recommend decisions; the AC form is not public.

• Accept (oral)
• Accept (poster)
• Reject

CoRL author requirements

Reviewers check these. Gaps are easy points to lose.

1. 8 pages (9th page at camera-ready), including a mandatory Limitations section
2. Use of generative AI disclosed
3. No citations to non-existent references (checked automatically)
4. Anonymized submission

Policy on LLMs in reviewing